Caporegime
Sounds like win-win for her in that case ^
Paying barely anything compared to you and won't sign a contract to pay more.
Paying barely anything compared to you and won't sign a contract to pay more.
Poll: Moving a partner into an owned-home? Finances
- Thread starter ov_sjo
- Start date
Yeah, and you are speaking from the perspective of a dependent with no job, thus of course you are going to be biased towards the sponging option. Not quite sure that is the angle the OP was aiming for.
Soldato
The big point to remember is that what you feel, what you love, what you want is irrelevant when it comes to the law.
No one can say that you will live happily ever after, hopefully you will and good luck to you. But if things turn sour, and you have to split... the law is the law, and if he/she decides to persue you WILL be kicking yourself for not sorting it out at the start.
If you meet someone and get married and then buy a house its clear cut... but if you already own or have a mortgage on a house and you move a partner in then its all down to a court to decide. Verbal agreements mean very little and just because your prospective spouse is "nice and sweet" now does not mean they will be when it comes to money.
No one can say that you will live happily ever after, hopefully you will and good luck to you. But if things turn sour, and you have to split... the law is the law, and if he/she decides to persue you WILL be kicking yourself for not sorting it out at the start.
If you meet someone and get married and then buy a house its clear cut... but if you already own or have a mortgage on a house and you move a partner in then its all down to a court to decide. Verbal agreements mean very little and just because your prospective spouse is "nice and sweet" now does not mean they will be when it comes to money.
This, this and this. I wince every time I see some clueless and naive chap saying: "No I don't need to bother with all that stuff, we are in love and it's hardly romantic to treat it as a financial decision".
Yup, lets see how you change your tune in 5, 10 or 20 years mate when you're eating your microwave meals out of your one-room bedsit while your wife/partner and kid live it up in your family home.
Soldato
Can you provide a citation for this, even one example, ever?
One of my uncles got seriously burnt. Newly-wed wife moved into his house, mortgage paid off and owned outright by him. She brought along 2 teenage kids from a previous relationship. When my uncle's marriage didn't work out, the (now) ex-wife ended up getting his house even though he wasn't the father of the kids (aged 16 and 18 at the split). In terms of income, they were both really well off as they co-ran a company. I asked my mum how she ended up getting his house and she said that she had a good solicitor.
Honestly, stories like this make me feel sick. While she must have had a good lawyer, he must have reacted too late or been very slack in order to lose his entire house.
Either way, men are screwed unless they take real precautions.
They were married though in your example? If so this is entirely (completely) not the same situation
Man of Honour
A pays CapEx costs and both A and B pay OpEx costs.
Soldato
I'd keep ownership and she can pay rent. Simple.
D) Rent out your house and rent a place together, splitting everything 50/50. There are less arguments this way and no one feels like they are getting screwed over. It does depend on you being happy to leave your house though.
E) Rent a room out to her (with a proper lodging agreement). No equity implicitly or explicitly implied.
A) is all the financial benefits of home ownership without the responsibilities
B) could be done with a 50/50 split of bills but is a very cheap roof over their head.
C) is not fair on person A.
E) Rent a room out to her (with a proper lodging agreement). No equity implicitly or explicitly implied.
A) is all the financial benefits of home ownership without the responsibilities
B) could be done with a 50/50 split of bills but is a very cheap roof over their head.
C) is not fair on person A.
there was a jeremy vine show about this a couple of years ago with lots of cases.
my suggestion above came from one of the phone ins to the show and was endorsed by a lawyer.
Let's not talk about how she debated whether she moved in during June or July...
Soldato
Whomever owns the home puts it up for rent.
Both parties rent together in new property and see how it goes for a few years.
If it looks like the relationship can cope with the increased level of interaction, consider a property together.
Both parties rent together in new property and see how it goes for a few years.
If it looks like the relationship can cope with the increased level of interaction, consider a property together.
As usual with the Law it's not quite as simple as that, hence it is worth taking out a deed of trust in these situations to legally define the financial rights to something like the house.
http://www.independent.co.uk/money/...ancial-interests-when-cohabiting-9672921.html
See how it says 'could' find they have no rights
It's the same issue with the death of one of the couple, the surviving cohabitor/common law spouse has no automatic rights to the dead persons estate.
A friend of mine was in this situation, where his gf owned the house. He contributed towards everything for years and when the relationship broke down, he got nothing.
Associate
Depends on how much the mortgage and the bills are
If they come to about the same amount and you both earn about the same, then go with option B
Thats what me and my OH have done for the past 4.5 years of living together (although our house is a private rent)
Edit:
We will be doing this if and when we buy together and we are not married by then
If they come to about the same amount and you both earn about the same, then go with option B
Thats what me and my OH have done for the past 4.5 years of living together (although our house is a private rent)
Edit:
We will be doing this if and when we buy together and we are not married by then
Stack vs Dowden I think, happy to be corrected on this though.
OP, go with whatever you're comfortable with, but have your homework done given the chances of it getting nasty.
Last edited:
I was in this situation years ago and I paid the mortgage and my girlfriend did bills and shopping but agreed she had no stake in the house (my deposit and so on). We've been married 10 years now and that arrangement is a thing of the past but it worked find at the time. Didn't put it to any kind of stress test though.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
When my partner and I (now wife) moved in together - we just had one bank account, our salaries got paid into it, we paid the mortgage and bills and the world didn't end. There was no splitting of bills or any of that nonsense - what was mine was hers and what was hers was mine. If we were restricted on fund and one of us wanted to buy something of value, we had a conversation about it and came to an agreement. Sometimes I compromised, sometimes she compromised, sometimes no compromise was possible - life carried on.
You know, being an adult about it and all that.
You know, being an adult about it and all that.
When my mrs moved in some 10 years ago at first we had arrangement C and I was fine with that. Then when it was more serious and apparent that she wasn't going anywhere we moved to arrangement B. This worked fine for about 6 years then when I sold the flat about 3 years ago we bought a a place together and have arrangement A.
Sit down and work out what works for you both and it shouldn't be too much of a chore.
Sit down and work out what works for you both and it shouldn't be too much of a chore.